Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the Death of Bernard ...

the actual memory of many of its staff and prisoners); and this added to the perception of
vulnerability on both sides.” (HMCIP 2002, page 4)
The wing-based disciplinary system
7.20 In 1996, the inspection report noted that prison officers could deprive prisoners of
association periods for a variety of reasons and about 10 per cent of the prisoners on K
wing were so deprived. Loss of association meant, for example, no access to showers or
telephones, and the inspectorate was dismayed to find little written evidence of why
prisoners were being dealt with in this way (HMCIP 1996, paragraphs 7.23-7.24).
7.21 The Director of Regimes at Manchester issued amended guidelines on restricting
facilities on 1 October 1996. They stated that the restriction of access to facilities should
be recorded on the wing record maintained for the purpose and on the prisoner’s history
sheets so that any pattern of misbehaviour could be identified. All privilege restrictions
were to be approved by the wing Senior Officer (SO), usually following a
recommendation from wing officers, and with the prisoner’s personal officer involved if
possible. For prisoners on standard or basic level the possible sanctions were loss of
association to be imposed for one day only per infraction or withdrawal of one electrical
item for one week.
7.22 In 1998 HMCIP expressed concern again that staff still had delegated authority to
deny association to prisoners who, in their opinion, infringed minor rules and regulations,
but that no warnings were given and there was no proper managerial oversight of the
process.
7.23 From paragraph 3.34 of the report:
“All the officer had to do was to record in a book the prisoner’s name and state why
association had been stopped. Although this also required the counter signature of a
SO, it was not done in some cases.” (HMCIP 1998, paragraph 3.34)
The report called the scheme:
“an arbitrary system with no right of appeal. Each day some prisoners were not being
unlocked for association for minor infringements that would not have been considered
sufficiently serious as to warrant being placed on governor’s report. There was no form
of investigation into the alleged offence or the circumstance relating to it and no
warnings appeared to be given.” (HMCIP 1998, paragraph 3.34)
48